From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754243Ab0E3ULa (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 May 2010 16:11:30 -0400 Received: from mail-px0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:55526 "EHLO mail-px0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753510Ab0E3UL2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 May 2010 16:11:28 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=gI7fsbCyYR4Cu+sKDT1ZVPdvEoHZrEuFTW53bnqKycmCtGWUWfV9uLH6k7drjZq88A vPVpSB4n5+nDUI75xfji9Gm4Hw4W0nQlzxMY/6FEZAzdw4aO+yDnIe6/jnMvrdSibnrl dPOwf/zG30qVxSnQRQEYgnmHtoUOuC2KI5Nm8= Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 13:11:42 -0700 From: mark gross <640e9920@gmail.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Nigel Cunningham , markgross@thegnar.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [patch] complain when users abuse the pm_qos API Message-ID: <20100530201142.GC25545@gvim.org> Reply-To: markgross@thegnar.org References: <20100529045027.GE11600@gvim.org> <201005292208.04309.rjw@sisk.pl> <4C019D36.8070405@crca.org.au> <201005302150.01452.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201005302150.01452.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 09:50:01PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday 30 May 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On 30/05/10 06:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Saturday 29 May 2010, mark gross wrote: > > >> The following patch is to help clean up API abusers of pm_qos where > > >> they call update_request before registering a request. > > >> > > >> --mgross > > >> > > >> --Signed-off-by: markgross > > > > > > Will there be a big issue if I push this during the next merge window? > > > > What's the point to the patch? That is: why is calling update_request > > before registering a request such a big problem that it demands a WARN() > > and dump stack? > > It is an API violation if I understand that correctly. Yeah, it is, but now that I'm thinking clearly perhaps a better fix would be to change the prototype of pm_qos_update_request to return something so callers can check for success. Lets fix the API rather than use this patch. Please dopt apply it. --mgross